Shure SM7

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael Jones
  • Start date Start date
Michael Jones

Michael Jones

New member
Is this mic still being made?
If so, does it differ from older, vintage SM7's, and where can a new one be found?
What would be the approximate cost of one of these mics?
Anyone know?
 
If you pay $200 (let alone $400) for an sm57, you are paying too much. They retail for less than that
 
matty_boy said:
If you pay $200 (let alone $400) for an sm57, you are paying too much. They retail for less than that
Click to expand...
Matt, read carefully, we're talking about an SM7, not an SM57.

Thanks to the rest of you, I had tried to find one at 8th street before, but for some reason my search came up empty???
What I meant by vintage was the SM7, not its newer counterpart the SM7B, but the description at 8th street pretty much answered my questions.
Thanks again.
 
matty_boy said:
If you pay $200 (let alone $400) for an sm57, you are paying too much. They retail for less than that
Click to expand...

Oh, to be a newb ! ! ! :)
 
My concern with the SM7 is the perception that a quality mic pre is needed
due to the low output level inherent to it, especially if you're running it
into a compressor, etc.
 
Well, should I decide to obtain one (or more), I'll be using it with a vintage Audix 35102 Mic Pre, racked by Brent Averill Enterprises.
 
chessparov said:
My concern with the SM7 is the perception that a quality mic pre is needed
due to the low output level inherent to it, especially if you're running it
into a compressor, etc.
Click to expand...

That's a good point you make, as the output on it is noticeably lower than most of the other mics in my collection. Still, I have had perhaps the greatest success using my M-audio dmp2 on it.

The only beefs anyone has ever had about the dmp2 is that there isn't enough phantom power for some mics, and that it can be overloaded if you have one that is too hot. None of these will ever be a problem with an sm7. So in my opinion, if for nothing else, the dmp2 is pretty damn close to a wold-class sounding pre, if only on that one mic. And I say that with a straight face. It's mediocre at best on all of my other mics - actually sucks on a few of them.

But the sm7 likes it, so for that reason, the dmp2 stays.

If you got a Brent Averill, then I wouldn't worry about your preamp -- just get the mic. And you'll probably only need one. What you get with the sm7 is an outstanding vocal mic. Ultra-smooth, and it handles siblances and plosives better than any mic I've ever laid my hands on. Using it on instruments would be a waste, since a 57 is probably just as good for that purpose.
 
Which is kind of a waste when you consider that the air that is generally pushed by a bass drum can degrade the sound of the sm7 over time . . . and you can actually get a better sound on that from something like an AT pro for $50.

I kind of baby the sm7 the way I do condenser mics. It's very rugged, granted, but why risk degrading it's sound on sources that can be served just as well with a much cheaper mic. The sm7 is a world-class vocal mic (well, at least as world class as they get for $400 that is).
 
How much different does an SM7 sound from a 57? I understand that they both use the same cartridge inside (unidyne III, I think). Maybe they have very different response contouring (in the transformers?).

Alan
 
They sound similar, but the sm7 is much smoother, has greater proximity effect, and rejects plosives and siblances like a champion. Also, it has some added flexibility - a few extra switches that allow for bass roll-off and another for high-end boost.

And the diaphragm is larger, is it not? :)
 
Which is kind of a waste when you consider that the air that is generally pushed by a bass drum can degrade the sound of the sm7 over time . . . and you can actually get a better sound on that from something like an AT pro for $50.

i didn't say it sounded good though.;) besides they were all morons. :D
 
Containing the same capsule, I would think the 57 and 7 have the same diaphragm size. But undoubtably there are differences in baffling and screening (esp. to block plosives), and certainly the housings are very different. In the 7, the switchable low cut comes from a shunt in the transformer, and a capacitive resonance gives the switchable presence peak. As was pointed out, the 57 has neither of these, just a plain transformer. So I was wondering how close they were when the 7 is switched to be flat. Also, is the output level much different?
 
Actually, from what I have noticed, the sm7 sounds closer to the 57 when it's high end boost is engaged. I checked the freq. response patterns, and this seems to confirm my observations.

And yes, as was earlier mentioned, the output does seem to be hotter on my 57s for whatever reason. Then again, maybe my sm7 is just showing wear from all the times I've used it to mic the bass drum. :) Just kidding. It is older, though, which might contribute.

The sm7 is really interesting to look at when you take the foam screen off of it. I've never seen a diaphragm/capsule so carefully guarded. It looks like a steel cage or something was built around it to protect if from hurricane and/or nuclear fallout. :)

The idea I get is that the sm7 is what the 58 is trying desperately to be - a 57 specially-tailored for vocals. Only the 58 still sounds like a cheap mic, to me (although I think it sounds great live through a p.a.). The sm7 sounds very rich, smooth, lush, expensive.

Car analogy: If the 57 were an economy model that gets excellent gas mileage, the sm7 would be a similar make, only with much better handling for a smoother, comfortable ride in just about any terrain.

My favorite thing about it is it's proximity effect. It's so pronounced, yet manageable. I noticed my Marshall v67 has a similar effect, only the 7 is warmer, and without all the treble hype. It's pretty obvious why it's been so heavily used in radio and voiceovers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top